Ian Smith: 'A Bit Cynical'

Rhodesia moved a step closer last week to the transfer of political power from its 273,000 whites to majority rule. In London, British Foreign Secretary David Owen announced the outlines of a new U.S.-backed diplomatic initiative, aimed at obtaining agreement between Prime Minister Ian Smith's government and the rival black nationalist factions on a new constitution guaranteeing representation to the country's 6.3 million blacks. A jointly sponsored Rhodesian constitutional conference this summer will be postponed; instead, an Anglo-American "consultative group" will carry on bilateral negotiations with all parties likely to be involved in a future settlement. But the goal remains the same--majority rule by 1978.

In accepting the Owen plan, Smith again publicly committed his government to cooperation in the transition. Privately, however, in an interview last week with TIME Managing Editor Henry A. Grunwald and Johannesburg Bureau Chief William McWhirter, he maintained a wary and often pessimistic view of the process. Excerpts:

Q. Now there is a new transition plan, but you remain skeptical. Why?

A. Most Rhodesians are a little bit cynical about what the West is going to do. After the failure of the Kissinger [initiative], we don't trust these chaps who bluff us and then ask us to believe them. We were given a firm, binding contract and we agreed to it. We got a message of confirmation from Dr. Kissinger. We were assured that the British government was party to this. Also the "front line" [African] Presidents. You know what subsequently happened: they started backing out of it, one by one. If that agreement had been implemented, I think we would have had an example of a multiracial government here today. On three occasions since 1971 we have come to agreements. They have all failed because the other party went back on the agreement.

Q. What would you like to sign at the next conference--a constitution or some sort of agreement for a transitional government?

A. I think there are a number of combinations. We don't have to have a transitional government. The idea is now different. The constitution must first be produced before the agreement. This is because a lot of suspicion attached to the previous agreement. And there, I regret to say, the British, in the main, are responsible for sowing seeds of mistrust and trying to suggest that this government cannot be trusted.

Q. What is your definition of majority rule--one man, one vote?

A. No, I think there are many, many people who are strongly opposed to that. There are many black organizations in Rhodesia who are on record as having said that this is not the kind of thing they have asked for. A majority-rule constitution is one with the majority of voters on the voters' roll. The crux of the matter is: what are the qualifications for the voters' roll?

Q. When most blacks in Rhodesia talk about majority rule, are they talking about one man, one vote?

A. I think the majority of them don't know what we are talking about. The majority of them aren't really interested. But there are a number of ambitious politicians and agitators who are going to insist on this whether they want it or not.

Q. Would terrorism cease six months from now or a year from now, if you had a constitution? Would that finish the outside pressure on you?

A. Marxism will continue to knock on our door, but that is of no consequence. It is the terrorists who, supported by Marxism, come into Rhodesia and go out into the trust lands [black areas] to gain the support of the local tribesmen on the ground. Without that support, terrorists can't operate. You would not eliminate pressures from outside, but every country in the world copes with these. It's the terrorism within our country that we have got to cure.

Q. Does majority rule still mean to you a multiracial government or does it mean black government?

A. I would hope we are going to have a multiracial setup in Rhodesia. I believe the white man has a tremendous amount to offer, great skill, know-how and experience and, after all, they are people of this country. I think it would be madness to arrive at the solution where you precluded them from participation. I am satisfied the vast majority of blacks also wish for this. But I know that because of intimidation, they are very cagey about what they say. Of course, the extremists want to drive the whites out.

Q. What useful role can the U.S. serve?

A. Pushing the British along so they won't dawdle. [In the past] they dawdled about everything under the sun, but let's hope that this new initiative is going to be different.

Q. Is this new initiative Rhodesia's last chance?

A. No I wouldn't say that. This is just another one. If this one doesn't work, then there will be another, and so on.

Q. How do you regard your own role in the future developments of this country? Is there a point at which you will have said, "My job is finished"?

A. If only I had an opening to get out of this chair, I would be back on my farm so smartly you wouldn't see me for dust.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.